Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Fe council denies appeal of 165‑unit Zoro Blanco development after contentious inclusionary-housing fight
Summary
After a daylong, quasi‑judicial hearing, the Santa Fe governing body denied an appeal seeking to apply the city’s Santa Fe Homes inclusionary program to a 165‑unit project in the Tiara Contenta annexation, leaving the developer’s proposal intact and prompting calls to fix gaps in how older annexation agreements intersect with current affordable‑housing rules.
The Santa Fe governing body on April 7 denied an appeal of the planning commission’s approval of a 165‑unit multifamily project known as Zoro Blanco, concluding the record supported the commission’s finding that the city’s Santa Fe Homes inclusionary program does not apply to the tract as a legal matter.
The project, proposed on a 7.9‑acre site within the Tiara Contenta annexation area, was the subject of a protracted hearing that turned on whether a 1994 annexation agreement and master‑plan language exempted the parcel from the city’s inclusionary requirement. Tiara Contenta Corporation, an adjoining property owner and appellant, argued the tract should be subject to the Santa Fe Homes program — or, at minimum, that the project should provide an affordable‑housing contribution. “We disagree with staff conclusion that the Santa Fe Homes program does not apply to this project,” the project’s applicant stated in writing and reiterated in testimony at the hearing.
City planning staff and the city attorney took the opposite legal view: they found the parcel was covered by earlier written agreements and master‑plan designations that predate the 2005 enactment of the Santa Fe Homes rules. Staff therefore recommended, and the planning commission adopted, findings that the project as configured did not trigger the inclusionary program. The council voted 9‑0 to deny the appeal after hearing testimony from staff, the applicant, Tiara Contenta representatives, and a number of community organizations and housing providers.
Why this mattered: the dispute carried financial and policy stakes. Had the council concluded the Santa Fe Homes program applied, the project would have either been required to provide on‑site affordable units or pay a fee‑in‑lieu estimated in staff materials at roughly $684,619 to the city’s affordable‑housing trust fund. Opponents of the planning commission’s decision — including local housing nonprofits and members of the Tiara Contenta board — said rejecting the trust‑fund contribution would weaken the city’s overall affordable‑housing production.
Supporters of the approval, including the project team and some council members, stressed that the city must apply existing land‑use law and contract obligations as written. The applicant said it sought a workable outcome and had proposed a fee in lieu during negotiations but that staff had concluded the pre‑existing agreement and its assignment provisions meant the Santa Fe Homes program did not apply to the parcel.
Looking ahead: Several councilors and members of the public urged staff and elected leaders to fix the legal gap that created the controversy — either by clarifying code language about when the Santa Fe Homes program applies or by negotiating amendments where appropriate to older annexation agreements — so future developments do not result in similar disputes. The council did not adopt a corrective measure at the meeting; it denied the appeal and left the planning commission’s approval in place.
What happened procedurally: after the public hearing and deliberations the council member who moved denial cited the planning commission findings and staff analysis, and the motion carried on a roll‑call vote. The planning commission approval therefore stands and the developer may proceed within the limits of that approval and applicable permits.
The full administrative record for the appeal includes: the 1994 Tiara Contenta annexation agreement, the project application and staff reports, the planning commission findings and conclusions, correspondences among Tiara Contenta, the applicant and city staff, and multiple public comments recorded in the hearing transcript.
Next step: the council’s action was final for the governing body; parties retain any rights of judicial appeal under state law. Meanwhile, several councilors asked the administration to return with an analysis of whether the city’s code or administrative practice should be updated to avoid similar legal conflicts between legacy annexation agreements and modern inclusionary housing rules.
